Following oral arguments in a Supreme Court case challenging his executive order ending birthright citizenship, President Trump accused Democrats of “playing the ref,” alleging coordinated efforts to influence the justices. He warned the court against succumbing to these perceived games, claiming widespread public support. However, this assertion contradicts recent polling data showing low approval ratings for both Trump and his executive order. Trump’s rhetoric implied potential repercussions for justices ruling against his administration.
Read More
High U.S. drug prices stem from its unique healthcare system compared to other high-income nations with universal coverage. Trump’s previous “Most Favored Nation” policy, aimed at reducing Medicare drug costs, failed due to legal challenges. His latest executive order mandates negotiations with drugmakers, threatening to tie U.S. prices to those of other countries if agreements aren’t reached within 30 days. Currently, however, no price changes have resulted.
Read More
Fifteen states are suing the Trump administration for declaring a “national energy emergency” on his first day in office, a claim the states argue is false given the US’s record-high energy production. The lawsuit alleges the executive order, bypassing environmental protections, will cause irreparable harm to natural resources and violates the National Energy Act by pursuing partisan interests under the guise of an emergency. The plaintiffs contend the order prioritizes fossil fuels while ignoring domestic renewable energy sources. The case challenges the administration’s authority to enact energy policies through an unfounded emergency declaration, potentially setting a significant legal precedent.
Read More
Fifteen states, led by Washington and California, are suing the Trump administration for its January 20th declaration of a national energy emergency. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, argues the declaration is a pretext to bypass environmental review and permitting processes for numerous fossil fuel projects. The coalition contends that invoking emergency powers is only justifiable during actual disasters, not for policy changes. The states allege the executive order unlawfully directs federal agencies to expedite approvals for energy projects.
Read More
President Trump announced a new executive order aiming to slash prescription drug prices by 30-80%, implementing a “Most Favored Nation” policy to align US prices with the lowest worldwide prices. This action, to be signed the following morning, seeks to address the significant disparity between US and international drug costs. The policy’s effectiveness, however, faces uncertainty regarding its enforceability on the private sector, with critics questioning its feasibility and potential legal challenges. Trump’s initiative has garnered both praise and skepticism, highlighting the complexities of regulating pharmaceutical pricing.
Read More
Governor JB Pritzker will sign an executive order prohibiting the mass collection and sharing of Illinois residents’ autism-related data. This action directly counters recent statements by the U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary advocating for extensive research into autism’s causes, including exploring environmental factors. The order mandates that state agencies and their contractors can only collect or disclose such data when legally required for care, compliance, or program eligibility, prioritizing data privacy and anonymization. Illinois will be the first state to enact such protective measures, prioritizing the dignity and rights of individuals with autism.
Read More
A recent 60 Minutes exposé detailed Donald Trump’s campaign of retribution against major law firms. Trump’s executive orders, aimed at firms representing his opponents, have been described as an assault on the legal profession, with some firms facing financial repercussions and others pressured into pro bono work for the administration. A federal judge deemed one such order unconstitutional, while lawyers involved have likened Trump’s actions to mob tactics and bribery. The segment also revealed that Paramount, 60 Minutes’ parent company, faced pressure to temper criticism of Trump, leading to the departure of the show’s longtime chief.
Read More
Judge Beryl Howell issued a 102-page ruling declaring President Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie unconstitutional. The order, which sought to penalize the firm for representing Hillary Clinton, included actions such as stripping security clearances and terminating contracts. Howell deemed the actions retaliatory, violating the First Amendment and potentially undermining the independence of the legal profession. The judge’s decision affirms the importance of independent legal counsel and free speech, while the White House and Justice Department have yet to comment.
Read More
Judge Beryl Howell permanently blocked Donald Trump’s unconstitutional executive order targeting Perkins Coie, citing violations of the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. The order, deemed retaliatory for Perkins Coie’s work with the Hillary Clinton campaign, unlawfully restricted the firm’s access to federal buildings and imposed burdensome disclosure requirements on government contractors. Howell’s decision, a significant victory for Perkins Coie, criticized the administration’s actions as viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional retaliation. The Trump administration is expected to appeal.
Read More
A federal judge has blocked President Trump’s executive order targeting Perkins Coie, deeming it an unconstitutional infringement on clients’ right to counsel and the firm’s due process rights. The order, unprecedented in its attempt to punish a law firm for representing clients with opposing views, directed agencies to take actions including contract reviews, building access restrictions, and security clearance revocations. Judge Howell’s decision follows similar temporary restraining orders for other firms, and stands in contrast to deals struck by nine other law firms to avoid similar executive actions. The judge characterized the order as an attack on fundamental judicial principles, highlighting the firm’s penalization for representing clients and expressing views at odds with the President.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker